If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Are you not aware that Australia's mandatory buyback coincided with a 59% drop in gun violence?

Overall violence, specifically homicide, is far more relevant. How many homicides that would have normally been committed with a gun prior to the '96 gun ban were then committed with another weapon after the ban? How many deaths were caused by black market trade? How many homicides can be attributed to the average criminal being better armed than your typical law-abiding citizen? How many homicides were prevented prior to the '96 gun ban by law-abiding citizens mortally wounding would-be violent repeaters? Obviously these are questions can't be answered since they can't be quantified, but they would help explain why there isn't a drastic decrease in overall homicide since the '96 gun ban.

In the seven years prior to 1997, firearms were used in 24 percent of all Australian homicides. But most recently, firearms were used in only 11 percent of Australian homicides, according to figures for the 12 months ending July 1, 2007. That’s a decline of more than half since enactment of the gun law to which this message refers.

Some scholars even credit the 1996 gun law with causing the decrease in deaths from firearms, though they are still debating that point. A 2003 study from AIC, which looked at rates between 1991 and 2001, found that some of the decline in firearm-related homicides (and suicides as well) began before the reform was enacted. On the other hand, a 2006 analysis by scholars at the University of Sydney concluded that gun fatalities decreased more quickly after the reform. Yet another analysis, from 2008, from the University of Melbourne, concluded that the buyback had no significant effect on firearm suicide or homicide rates.

So there’s no consensus about whether the changes decreased gun violence or had little to no effect. But the only argument we’ve seen arguing that it caused an increase in murder comes from our anonymous e-mail author.

This is an isolated example, so even were this particular sample of sufficient size it wouldn't tell us a whole hell of a lot. That said, I'd like to see a study done that proves a positive-correlation between strict gun control and a reduction of homicides (per capita). Even if a positive correlation could be found, at what rate would the reduction of homicide justify the loss of individual liberty? Then there's the issue of whether not crime as a whole has been reduced by disarming law-abiding citizens. Once those issues have been addressed, you would then have to weigh it against the possible threat of tyranny (foreign and domestic). Even if one argues the chances domestic tyranny is low, almost a quarter of a billion people have died over the last century as a result of tyranny. In every case the citizens were disarmed. If a tyrant seized control of this country it would be almost impossible to mount a resistance with guns, because it would be an Orwellian Society. Needless to say, resistance would be impossible without guns.

Overall violence, specifically homicide, is far more relevant. How many homicides that would have normally been committed with a gun prior to the '96 gun ban were then committed with another weapon after the ban? How many deaths were caused by black market trade? How many homicides can be attributed to the average criminal being better armed than your typical law-abiding citizen? How many homicides were prevented prior to the '96 gun ban by law-abiding citizens mortally wounding would-be violent repeaters? Obviously these are questions can't be answered since they can't be quantified, but they would help explain why there isn't a drastic decrease in overall homicide since the '96 gun ban.

...

This is an isolated example, so even were this particular sample of sufficient size it wouldn't tell us a whole hell of a lot. That said, I'd like to see a study done that proves a positive-correlation between strict gun control and a reduction of homicides (per capita).

A chart of the total number of homicides per capita from Australia is available. I can't reference the image to post it locally because it's in flash, but here's the link:

Even if a positive correlation could be found, at what rate would the reduction of homicide justify the loss of individual liberty? Then there's the issue of whether not crime as a whole has been reduced by disarming law-abiding citizens. Once those issues have been addressed, you would then have to weigh it against the possible threat of tyranny (foreign and domestic). Even if one argues the chances domestic tyranny is low, almost a quarter of a billion people have died over the last century as a result of tyranny. In every case the citizens were disarmed. If a tyrant seized control of this country it would be almost impossible to mount a resistance with guns, because it would be an Orwellian Society. Needless to say, resistance would be impossible without guns.

You're the first gun advocate to be asking the right general question in this thread. It's only too bad you spent half of this paragraph discussing tyranny when that's clearly not half of the worry. More like hundredth of a percent of the worry. Though some people sure do seem paranoid about it, as if what's stopping our nuclear weaponized, F-18 equipped, armored division government from instituting an Orwellian state right now is a bunch of guys with pistols and tactical shotguns.

Anyway, Orwell's conception of a totalitarian society wasn't one of confiscated weapons, but one that controlled information. So if you're worried about 1984 becoming reality, net neutrality should be the pet issue, not maintaining gun ownership. Not that it appears Orwell really had his mind around the right dystopian future in any case. Huxley seems to have gotten closer to it with Brave New World, where the future is not one where people aren't able to learn the truth because it's been obfuscated, but one where people simply no longer care.

Anyway, I think the question of how much loss of freedom for how many fewer murders is the right one. I don't think there's a firm answer to it, personally. The results of Australia's initiative are the closest thing we have to a one to one example but there's still a measure of supposition about it. But that's at least a conversation worth having.

You're the first gun advocate to be asking the right general question in this thread. It's only too bad you spent half of this paragraph discussing tyranny when that's clearly not half of the worry. More like hundredth of a percent of the worry. Though some people sure do seem paranoid about it, as if what's stopping our nuclear weaponized, F-18 equipped, armored division government from instituting an Orwellian state right now is a bunch of guys with pistols and tactical shotguns.

Anyway, Orwell's conception of a totalitarian society wasn't one of confiscated weapons, but one that controlled information. So if you're worried about 1984 becoming reality, net neutrality should be the pet issue, not maintaining gun ownership. Not that it appears Orwell really had his mind around the right dystopian future in any case. Huxley seems to have gotten closer to it with Brave New World, with the future is not one where people aren't able to learn the truth because it's been obfuscated, but one where people simply no longer care.

Anyway, I think the question of how much loss of freedom for how many fewer murders is the right one. I don't think there's an answer to it, personally. But that's at least a conversation worth having.

I might be a whole lot more open to gun control and an assault weapons ban in particular if there was a strong correlation between that and reduced violent crime. We have a ten year sample that actually showed the complete opposite from all data that I have seen. Thus, I have no reason to give any type of credence to any type of weapons ban.

Additionally, I do not feel at all compelled in any way to justify why I want or need any type of gun. It is a constitutionally guaranteed right. No one has to justify why they need a certain freedom of speech or why they need their race or religion protected or why they need any other right that is protected by constitution or law. I agree with regulation to a degree but really think that preemptive controls on gun or ammunition sales is unconstitutional. It should be a right that you can lose only through your own behavior and illness. All gun checks should be simple drivers license swipes that provide an instant pass/fail based upon your criminal eligibility and whether a physician has flagged you as a danger to yourself or society. The physician should have to have some pretty conclusive evidence as well. Cheap, easy, and as effective as it is going to get.

I might be a whole lot more open to gun control and an assault weapons ban in particular if there was a strong correlation between that and reduced violent crime. We have a ten year sample that actually showed the complete opposite from all data that I have seen. Thus, I have no reason to give any type of credence to any type of weapons ban.

The assault weapons ban was a pretty toothless law, but it did coincide with a tamer than average era in mass shootings.

"Since the expiration of the gun ban in 2004, the number of shootings per year has doubled, and the number of victims per year has nearly tripled. Three of the bloodiest four years shown here occurred since the expiration."

No one has to justify why they need a certain freedom of speech or why they need their race or religion protected or why they need any other right that is protected by constitution or law.

Yes they do. Constantly.

I agree with regulation to a degree but really think that preemptive controls on gun or ammunition sales is unconstitutional. It should be a right that you can lose only through your own behavior and illness. All gun checks should be simple drivers license swipes that provide an instant pass/fail based upon your criminal eligibility and whether a physician has flagged you as a danger to yourself or society. The physician should have to have some pretty conclusive evidence as well. Cheap, easy, and as effective as it is going to get.

Oh, okay. So the 2nd amendment is carved into granite on the side of a mountain but the 5th amendment (guaranteeing your right not to have to turn over evidence against yourself) can be thrown out no problem... along with doctor/patient confidentiality.

In a previous article, we examined the revisionist history of anti-rights proponents who claim that since Australia instituted their gun ban, there have been no mass murders, despite the recent “gun-free” massacre of 135 Australians.

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. Peace Movement Aotearoa, based in New Zealand, calls itself a “national networking organization…interested in peace and social justice.” A fact sheet on their site is entitled Sharp Drop in Gun Crime Follows Tough Australian Firearm Laws. It’s very revealing that gun ban organizations validate gun control by focusing on gun-involved violence while avoiding any mention of overall violent crime trends.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there was a slight drop in the percent of murders committed with a firearm between 2001 and 2007 (16.0% and 13.4%, respectively). However, the percentage was highest in 2006 (16.3%) and remains higher than the low of 8.9% in 2005. There is no difference in the use of a firearm in robbery: Guns were used in 6.4% of all robberies in both 2001 and 2007.

In 2002–five years after enacting its gun ban–the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime: “The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued its declining trend since 1969.”

Even the head of Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, acknowledged that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime: There has been a drop in firearm-related crime, particularly in homicide, but it began long before the new laws and has continued on afterwards. I don't think anyone really understands why. A lot of people assume that the tougher laws did it, but I would need more specific, convincing evidence …

There has been a more specific … problem with handguns, which rose up quite rapidly and then declined. The decline appears to have more to do with the arrest of those responsible than the new laws. As soon as the heroin shortage hit, the armed robbery rate came down. I don't think it was anything to do with the tougher firearm laws.
Weatherburn also acknowledged that the best crime measure consists of “the arrest of those responsible.”

Moreover, Australia and America both experienced similar decreases in murder rates: Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9% decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7%.

Now for the rest of the story

During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2% and robbery 6.2%. Sexual assault–Australia’s equivalent term for rape–increased 29.9%. Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2%. At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8%: rape dropped 19.2%; robbery decreased 33.2%; aggravated assault dropped 32.2%. Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women (whom ABC reports are arming themselves at record rates because of safety concerns): More women, from soccer moms to professionals like the ones at the Blue Ridge Arsenal gun range in Chantilly, Va., are packing heat for sport, self-empowerment and protection.

While this doesn’t prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Moreover, for groups like Peace Movement Aotearoa, it’s apparently social justice when more people are raped, robbed, and assaulted, as long as they cannot defend themselves with firearms. This highlights the most important point: Gun banners promote failed policy irregardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them.

References
Violent crime rates compiled from Australian Bureau of Statistics and U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation sources. Email request for Excel workbook.

So if you're worried about 1984 becoming reality, net neutrality should be the pet issue, not maintaining gun ownership. Not that it appears Orwell really had his mind around the right dystopian future in any case. Huxley seems to have gotten closer to it with Brave New World, with the future is not one where people aren't able to learn the truth because it's been obfuscated, but one where people simply no longer care.

I think we live in a society that is quickly becoming a combination of the two. A lot of people on this board don't trust Fox News, but can one really trust any media outlet? Even in cases where news isn't completely fabricated, it's hard to find anything that isn't biased one way or another. Sadly, most journalists don't report the news, they interpret the news. Articles that use statistics as confirmation for what is true and what isn't is a key example. 'The truth you're getting isn't necessarily the truth you think you're getting' [paraphrase]

Originally Posted by TheWalrus

Anyway, Orwell's conception of a totalitarian society wasn't one of confiscated weapons, but one that controlled information.

My point wasn't that resistance would be difficult because of the lack of weapons. I just pointed out that even with the many guns that are currently in circulation, resistance (consisting mainly of ordinary citizens) would be an almost insurmountable challenge without a significant intervening force (a U.S. Military faction, local law enforcement, foreign troops, hackers). The difficulty in mounting resistance would vary proportionally according to the disparity in weapons technology (quantity and quality). Not that I'm suggesting every citizen should have the right to own a rocket-launcher.

You brought up controlled information, and that is one of the many elements that could prevent assembly (or if nothing else, reduce the number and make resistance more scattered). If the masses aren't informed there is a serious problem in their country, there won't be any outrage until the damage is already done. Big brother is another key element to control.

Originally Posted by TheWalrus

Though some people sure do seem paranoid about it, as if what's stopping our nuclear weaponized, F-18 equipped, armored division government from instituting an Orwellian state right now is a bunch of guys with pistols and tactical shotguns.

Openly attacking the populace on such a large scale (even without nuclear weapons) would be impractical, as that would significantly raise public awareness. As a result, you can bet many states (in addition to a significant portion of the military) would be against such tactics. The likely result would be civil war. For a totalitarian state to be implemented in this country, it would likely be a lot more subtle. The best way would probably be to make the enemy/opposition the excuse for everything that is wrong with the country or make them out to be one of the greatest threats to the country. From there, just prepare one or more major false flag operations. Hitler planning the the burning of the Reichstag would be one such example.

Originally Posted by TheWalrus

You're the first gun advocate to be asking the right general question in this thread. It's only too bad you spent half of this paragraph discussing tyranny when that's clearly not half of the worry. More like hundredth of a percent of the worry.

The chances of tyranny in this country is much greater than one might think. Is there a high probability of President Obama becoming a dictator within the next 3-4 years? Maybe not. But who is to say that any possible totalitarian government would have a singular leader?

The time elapsed resulting in a tyrannical government would vary depending on the circumstances of any given state of government. Even if it could be argued that not all totalitarian governments take away the liberties of its people, all it would take is one person with political sway to make things go all to hell. An abundantly strong central government with an eroding checks and balance system could very easily turn into a totalitarian government. For all the checks and balances (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of government) we think protect us from tyranny, they haven't stopped central government from growing at an alarming rate. Does anyone need reminding that Obama extended The Patriot Act in 2009? Or that he signed the National Defense Authorization Act in 2011? Is anyone alarmed that drones have been deployed on U.S. soil? But don't worry, it's for your protection. Imagine how safe we'll all feel when there's 30,000 drones in U.S. skies by 2020.

All of these security measures are supposedly in place to protect us from terrorist attacks. Let me clarify, I believe terrorism on U.S. soil is somewhat of a threat, but who determines the definition of what "terrorism" is? To be considered a terrorist, does one have to have violent intentions? Can the definition be extended to include anyone that openly conveys opposing views to those in power? This is a very dangerous slope.

With all the intrusive measures implemented since 9/11, how can anyone feel totally safe from their government?

Oh, c'mon. Gun ownership is comparable to the right to not be sterilized? Let's keep our brains in our heads, shall we?

The Constitution actually explicitly protects my right to own firearms; it only implicitly protects people from forced sterilization.

Each of the first 10 amendments is already subjected to regulation and limitation. And anyway I think you can make a strong argument that the 2nd amendment does not guarantee an individuals right to bear arms except within the context of national defense. Just because you think you know what it means does not mean that the language does not hold within itself different valid interpretations.

The weight of historical judicial interpretation is on the side of a right to bear arms for personal use, but gun advocates are reluctant to reference that because they know that kind of thing can change. They'd rather cling to "shall not be infringed", even if they're not putting much thought or analysis behind the amendment as a whole.

Whether or not we currently regulate any of the amendments is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with whether we should in act further regulations and limitations on them or not.

Total DepravityUnconditional ElectionLimited AtonementIrresistible GracePerseverance of the Saints

I think we live in a society that is quickly becoming a combination of the two. A lot of people on this board don't trust Fox News, but can one really trust any media outlet? Even in cases where news isn't completely fabricated, it's hard to find anything that isn't biased one way or another. Sadly, most journalists don't report the news, they interpret the news. Articles that use statistics as confirmation for what is true and what isn't is a key example. 'The truth you're getting isn't necessarily the truth you think you're getting' [paraphrase]

My point wasn't that resistance would be difficult because of the lack of weapons. I just pointed out that even with the many guns that are currently in circulation, resistance (consisting mainly of ordinary citizens) would be an almost insurmountable challenge without a significant intervening force (a U.S. Military faction, local law enforcement, foreign troops, hackers). The difficulty in mounting resistance would vary proportionally according to the disparity in weapons technology (quantity and quality). Not that I'm suggesting every citizen should have the right to own a rocket-launcher.

You brought up controlled information, and that is one of the many elements that could prevent assembly (or if nothing else, reduce the number and make resistance more scattered). If the masses aren't informed there is a serious problem in their country, there won't be any outrage until the damage is already done. Big brother is another key element to control.

Openly attacking the populace on such a large scale (even without nuclear weapons) would be impractical, as that would significantly raise public awareness. As a result, you can bet many states (in addition to a significant portion of the military) would be against such tactics. The likely result would be civil war. For a totalitarian state to be implemented in this country, it would likely be a lot more subtle. The best way would probably be to make the enemy/opposition the excuse for everything that is wrong with the country or make them out to be one of the greatest threats to the country. From there, just prepare one or more major false flag operations. Hitler planning the the burning of the Reichstag would be one such example.

The chances of tyranny in this country is much greater than one might think. Is there a high probability of President Obama becoming a dictator within the next 3-4 years? Maybe not. But who is to say that any possible totalitarian government would have a singular leader?

The time elapsed resulting in a tyrannical government would vary depending on the circumstances of any given state of government. Even if it could be argued that not all totalitarian governments take away the liberties of its people, all it would take is one person with political sway to make things go all to hell. An abundantly strong central government with an eroding checks and balance system could very easily turn into a totalitarian government. For all the checks and balances (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of government) we think protect us from tyranny, they haven't stopped central government from growing at an alarming rate. Does anyone need reminding that Obama extended The Patriot Act in 2009? Or that he signed the National Defense Authorization Act in 2011? Is anyone alarmed that drones have been deployed on U.S. soil? But don't worry, it's for your protection. Imagine how safe we'll all feel when there's 30,000 drones in U.S. skies by 2020.

All of these security measures are supposedly in place to protect us from terrorist attacks. Let me clarify, I believe terrorism on U.S. soil is somewhat of a threat, but who determines the definition of what "terrorism" is? To be considered a terrorist, does one have to have violent intentions? Can the definition be extended to include anyone that openly conveys opposing views to those in power? This is a very dangerous slope.

With all the intrusive measures implemented since 9/11, how can anyone feel totally safe from their government?

Great point and post. How can anyone trust this government with this power?? There's a clear pattern here that anyone can see no matter where you are politically. Even before 9-11 but definitely since then. And Obama represents the next step in the constant erosions of our liberties. The 2nd amendment is just the next amendment from many that have already been trampled on. Giving this government the gift of an unarmed (or damn close to it) populace is insane. These guys want to rule us and anyone falling for the "gun control" debate are only falling into a........

Great point and post. How can anyone trust this government with this power?? There's a clear pattern here that anyone can see no matter where you are politically. Even before 9-11 but definitely since then. And Obama represents the next step in the constant erosions of our liberties. The 2nd amendment is just the next amendment from many that have already been trampled on. Giving this government the gift of an unarmed (or damn close to it) populace is insane. These guys want to rule us and anyone falling for the "gun control" debate are only falling into a........